Abstract

Footnotes (204)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id946132. ; Size: 151K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

At its core, the "province and duty of the judicial department [is] to say what the law is." Chief Justice Marshall articulated this bedrock principle of judicial independence and operation in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Much less quoted, but no less significant, is the concept that "[t]hose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Any court, including "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," that is called on to judge an issue according to a rule should have the power to construe and develop the rule into a statement of what the law is. Over time, the definition of law is extended and constricted and applied to new situations. This definition and redefinition of law over time depends largely on reference to precedent and adherence to the principle of stare decisis. Thus, precedent and stare decisis are integral parts of the judicial department's power and duty to say what the law is.

In the realm of habeas corpus petitions, however, this power is being contravened. In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) which, among other things, amended the statutes governing federal habeas corpus law. AEDPA imposed a statute of limitations on filing a habeas corpus petition and substantially restricted an inmate's ability to file successive petitions. Most pertinent for this Comment, however, is that AEDPA also amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which sets the standards for ruling on habeas corpus petitions. AEDPA added a new section, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (hereinafter "the AEDPA standard"), which mandates that federal district courts reviewing a habeas corpus petition can rely only on Supreme Court case law to determine whether the petitioner's incarceration violates the United States Constitution. This Comment argues that this provision undermines the judicial department's ability to say what the law is, and is an unconstitutional impairment of the exercise of the Article III judicial function.